<p>Wait til this kid grows up a little. There is a reason no one over 25 is a Communist. I used to be hardcore libertarian when I was younger. We all mature and grow out of these stages when we get older.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Grandfather was a hardcore Communist until he died… in his 70s. </p>
<p>You need to grow up and stop assuming that everyone who wants change is idealistic and immature/naive.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There’s the thing. You’re not gaining anything from working, so you don’t have incentive to work. Yet you still have to work, but without reward, there is no meaning, which eventually leads to destruction of a communist society.</p>
<p>It’s the preschoolers’s “it’s not fair” line of thought.</p>
<p>Teacher, Joe’s not coloring his turkey, so why should I? If someone notices that everyone is receiving equal treatment and benefits while he/she is putting more in, that person’s going to, well, stop working so hard because he/she feels “it’s not fair”.</p>
<p>
Yes, you are so much older than me. And I bet I know who has had the more life experiences with poverty.</p>
<p>Anyway, most socialist/communist philosophers and revolutionaries were over 25…</p>
<p>I think that capitalism is fine but the version that it has grown to now is horribly twisted from its beginnings. But with communism you need 100 percent support, and people who work hard or get punished by the community. This makes it really hard to implement.</p>
<p>This entire point is based on a misunderstanding of the world in which we currently live. To say that people will not work hard unless they get paid proportionally for their labor is false for a number of reasons:</p>
<ol>
<li> Millions currently work over 50 hours a week in squalid conditions for an amount of money that would not even pay for food in this country. A simple look at GDP numbers will confirm this, yet the wealthy in these nations have as much money as a business executive here might. Nonetheless, these people continue to work because they have to, and working for the benefit of a thriving community (because we know that we are plagued by no lack of production and the elimination of currency would make our vast resources available to all) always beats working hard for one’s self and getting nothing for it. Simply denying the benefits of society to those who refuse to participate in it is enough to make sure you don’t have people living off the government (i.e. the people) as we have today.</li>
<li> Peer pressure will be enough to shame those who might desire to be lazy to work harder. If everyone is in control of production, then everyone has a stake in it. People will make sure that everyone is working hard for the good of all. In our society, for example, people rarely park in the handicapped parking spots despite the fact that tickets are rarely written up for this offense and the location is more convenient than parking farther away. The fact that it is frowned upon makes up for this.</li>
<li> There is a direct benefit to working hard - the good of the community = the good of the individual in an anarchist society.</li>
<li> There will be no need for money it will be abolished. Goods will be available to everyone in the society.</li>
<li> People will learn to be responsible citizens, just as is taught to us today in Civics class, which is a requirement at my school and likely many other schools as well.</li>
<li> The advent of money is what has created greed and laziness. People will see that pride in one’s work is a greater payment than any result of laziness, just as many students see learning as more important that going to a good college to get a high paying job.</li>
<li> Fairness is not an issue. Everyone is at an even playing field and is therefore able to live an authentic life rather than feeling a pathological need to compete with their neighbors for money.</li>
<li> If you’ve ever worked a job, you’d know that some people simply work harder than others, but that we all get the same paycheck. Nobody ever complains about this because it would be asinine as long as we get our benefits (in this case, a society controlled by the people rather than the bourgeoisie and upper class and freedom from oppression).</li>
<li> There is no reason for anyone to be resentful. There is no oppression, no taxation, and the government is the people. What is to be desired?</li>
<li> Ancient peoples thrived for eons in cooperative communities idealized by the obschina that was present in Ancient Europe. Native Americans had a similar structure</li>
</ol>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nope. Simple as this - you work, and you are given an ID card that permits you to enjoy all benefits of this Bakuninist society. You don’t work on popularly approved things, you don’t get this card. You feed corruption by jacking off instead of working, you are suspended for a day or two, and these penalties increase in severity.</p>
<p>As someone who has matured, I can tell you rather bluntly that my beliefs are based in fact enough that I have no need to “grow up.” And, once again, ad hominem attacks don’t work, because you have no idea what my financial situation is like.</p>
<p>Also, coincidentally, the invention of money debuted at just the same standard of living rose all around the world. I don’t know about you, but I’d take hot water, fresh food, and stable housing over being a nomad in a Communist society.</p>
<p>As did slavery, and there isn’t any indication that our current infrastructure would instantly fall to ruins as a popular society was erected</p>
<p>Actually, money still exists, because it kicks ass compared to a barter economy. But let’s compare a means of exchange to race based slavery. Logical leaps? Ok as long as you are a Communist.</p>
<p>
When did I saw you needed to grow up? And how is this an ad hominem logical fallacy:
Which was in response to this:
Which was, indeed, a logically unsound attack on me for being roughly one year younger than you.</p>
<p>You’re right, I don’t know your financial situation. However, I do know mine. I know that mine is what has solidified my beliefs on the matter. You, however, did claim to know mine, by calling me affluent on page 2. So let’s recap. I didn’t say you needed to grow up, you said that to me. I never claimed to know your finances, but you inaccurately guessed at mine. Both correctly claimed as logical fallacies, but you should turn your scrutiny inward.</p>
<p>It is not a logical fallacy to assume that if you are attending a US university, you are making more than the world’s mean income, making you affluent.</p>
<p>They serve the same purpose.</p>
<p>Money is a means of completing barter when goods of actual value are not present, and, more importantly, of signifying comparitive value as a means of maintaining the social hierarchy, and was implemented because those who had more goods for barter desired a static value of their property for trade. If all people are equal, there is no need for money OR barter. The assumption can be made that everything remains equal as products are consumed by everyone.</p>
<p>Slavery, meanwhile, was a system of labor that was critical in the establishment of mass agriculture, and was in many cases a prerequisite of money, as can be seen in pre-Columbian societies such as the Aztec and Inca as well as in Mesopotamia.</p>
<p>How exactly will goods be distributed? How will this mythical one world government know what each person wants or needs, and how can they possibly distribute the resources in a way where everyone gets the same? It’s impossible, and will level the playing field by bringing down nearly everyone’s Standard of Living.</p>
<p>
The forum you have entered is “High School Life”. Therefore, it would be logical that someone starting a thread here is, well, in high school, not a university. While I am better off than much of the world’s poor, being poor in the United States with a high cost of living presents serious hardship. It is this hardship which has helped to form my beliefs. As I have said, I am not affluent. However, you seemed quite put out when you thought I was making assumptions about your income, so please, treat others as you would like to be treated.</p>
<p>^^ Everyone takes what they want/need. World production is enough to make this possible. You’ve probably seen how many products in stores go unsold or are simply thrown out (including food), and once money is balanced out, even 3rd World Countries will quickly be able to use the newest technologies that only their lack of capital is keeping from them.</p>
<p>^“Cost of living” would be different, and numbers like that would entail different things. In fact, there would be no official cost of living, as the necessities of all would be ensured.</p>
<p>Again, is socialism not controversial anymore?</p>
<p>Also, every argument opposed to communism here has been about the perceived practical difficulties. Nothing moral. So moral victory, I suppose.</p>
<p>
Well, philosophical arguments are fun. Also, why would you care that you CAN do something if you SHOULD not? Therefore, I say SHOULD ought to come first. It would save time.</p>
<p>^^^^ With money abolished, such a statistic is meaningless.
</p>
<p>[Michael</a> Bakunin by James Guillaume](<a href=“http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/guillaume/works/ideas.htm]Michael”>Michael Bakunin by James Guillaume)</p>
<p>^^ Also, we can do anything, considering we created the system we have now</p>